Sunshine, Light, and Joy

 

This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

CJohn

The Mummy | June 9, 2017 | Tom Cruise, Sofia Boutella, Russell Crowe | Trailer on Page 49

1,507 posts in this topic

How accurate is BO.com in general? Here are some of their first long-range DOM forecasts for recent movies:

 

Power Rangers $110M (actual: $84M+)

The Boss Baby $83M (actual: $140M+)

Ghost in the Shell (2017) $105M (actual: $40M+)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WWZ opening, slightly worse multiplier.

I can see that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This strikes me as one of those films that half of this forum will be wondering "how it did so well" and another third will be grousing about it not doing enough and then rest of us will be like - it's fine / in line with reasonable expectations.

 

thinking 45-50/140-145 at the moment. Doesn't crack 150 but doesn't go lower than 2008s film either.

 

Mummy 3 with piss poor WOM and legs adjusts to 126m today - can't see it really going beneath that one.

 

And for people wondering why Universal might even reboot this - look at the franchises past, it pulled 400m WW in 1999. The 2nd one adjusts to over 300m Domestic - so the potential for a good profit / gross is there with the right film.

 

 

BTW - that 400m gross was #6 WW which was 875m for #6 in 2016.

Edited by narniadis
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason why I haven't brushed this off as a non-grosser is because Tom Cruise has the lead role. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the beginning of a cinematic monster universe that Universal is planning. Much at stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No hype or buzz whatsoever. This should be a 200+ million grosser if universal really wants to launch a cinematic universe..Because to launch one off a sub 150 grosser would be lame. Go big or go home.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2017 at 6:04 PM, marveldcfox said:

No hype or buzz whatsoever. This should be a 200+ million grosser if universal really wants to launch a cinematic universe..Because to launch one off a sub 150 grosser would be lame. Go big or go home.

They COULD use a sequel to a 150 mil grosser IF it had a high worldwide (like over 500 mil). I think Mummy will do considerably worse than 150 mil though. And it does seem to have poor buzz (like King Arthur level)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the difference between X-Men Apocalypse & this movie is what exactly ?

 

:thinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

And the difference between X-Men Apocalypse & this movie is what exactly ?

 

:thinking:

It has a mummy and a tiny man screaming AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh is the hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think based off the Cruise factor, it'll get like 125m DOM, tops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is the last non MI Cruise film to make 125 million?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, baumer said:

When is the last non MI Cruise film to make 125 million?

 

2005 War of the Worlds I believe

 

and before that I think it was Jerry Maguire in 1996

Edited by 75live
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/28/2017 at 11:01 PM, MrGlass2 said:

How accurate is BO.com in general? Here are some of their first long-range DOM forecasts for recent movies:

 

Apparently a bit worst that the best predictor on this site for their long-range forecasts, I don't think they have special access nor do they spend money on their own research to do better than the average guy.

 

Studio's are kind of impressive on how good they can predict 3-6 month before the release, but longer range forecast they can be vastly wrong too.

 

As for the Mummy, people saying go big or go home I agree, this is launching a movie universe, full of A-lister that could attract big box office director (or well people that were a-list not so long ago at least), it is arguably more important to launch that movie universe popularity than think about profit margin on that first movie, if it is good and test screen well, I imagine they will go big on it's world release, 165+m world P&A type of big.

 

As for Cruise recent non MI domestic track record it is not that great it is true, he was a special case, people preferred Tom Cruise movies too Tom Cruise himself after is really bad PR year, him as a roles is maybe not a draw like in the past, but is name attach to a movie still give it a good aura that this should be fun among a large part of the audience.

 

I'm not sure what happened with Edge of Tomorrow exactly, it did seem like a perfect recipe, very commercial high concept, good trailer, giant spectacle, great reviews all around, is it just the sad reality that if you do not open that high for a blockbuster type title it is impossible to turn around that momentum or is Cruise brand somewhat really down domestic ?

Edited by Barnack
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, Edge of Tomorrow proved once again that without a brand, your 175m blockbuster isn't worth much, sadly.

 

Even if the movie has a great concept and great reviews/reception.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

If anything, Edge of Tomorrow proved once again that without a brand, your 175m blockbuster isn't worth much, sadly.

 

But good very commercial proven one sentence high concept like Edge Tomorrow could do the job instead of a brand from time to time, look at the Martian.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

But good very commercial proven one sentence high concept like Edge Tomorrow could do the job instead of a brand from time to time, look at the Martian.

 

The exception to the current rule I guess.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Barnack said:

As for Cruise recent non MI domestic track record it is not that great it is true, he was a special case, people preferred Tom Cruise movies too Tom Cruise himself after is really bad PR year, him as a roles is maybe not a draw like in the past, but is name attach to a movie still give it a good aura that this should be fun among a large part of the audience.

 

It is hard to talk about Tom Cruise "non MI" track record because since MI3, he just hasn't done a lot of big-budget action movies - except Mission Impossible. Oblivion was moderately successful and Edge of Tomorrow disappointing; that's it, the rest is (successful) MI movies. And he did launch the lower-profile but profitable Jack Reacher series.

Overall that is a pretty good track record for an actor who doesn't pick roles in the modern franchise model - until perhaps The Mummy.

 

3 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

As for the Mummy, people saying go big or go home I agree, this is launching a movie universe, full of A-lister that could attract big box office director (or well people that were a-list not so long ago at least), it is arguably more important to launch that movie universe popularity than think about profit margin on that first movie, if it is good and test screen well, I imagine they will go big on it's world release, 165+m world P&A type of big.

 

Then again if it flops, Universal can pretend it never happened and launch their dubious Monsters Cinematic Universe with the next movie: that is what they did after Dracula Untold. But this seems a more ambitious and well-planned attempt (especially the Russell Crowe character), so if it doesn't work out that will probably be the end of the MonsCU.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

 

It is hard to talk about Tom Cruise "non MI" track record because since MI3, he just hasn't done a lot of big-budget action movies - except Mission Impossible. Oblivion was moderately successful and Edge of Tomorrow disappointing; that's it, the rest is (successful) MI movies. And he did launch the lower-profile but profitable Jack Reacher series.

Overall that is a pretty good track record for an actor who doesn't pick roles in the modern franchise model - until perhaps The Mummy.

 

Oblivion/Jack Reacher I'm not sure how successful they were, Jack Reacher 2 gross budget was nearly 100 million:

https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=GqkbSZEd3QDTAlWLjuQ2Rw%3d%3d

 

It did 162 million at the BO, not bad but it is not domestic heavy like a Mag 7 that can get away with not doubling is budget and still doing really well (Mag 7 is selling very well in DVD right now for example), will know before the end of this year they got how much in tax credit and have a better idea. If it achieved to get it's budget below 85 it could have been ok.

 

Same for Oblivion, if it reached Elysium budget and if Cruise gave away if first dollar gross it probably made the same kind of profit, but it was a 160m gross budgeted movie that made 286 million at the BO:

 

https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=dds9lTP6WsNtuzsgF6cvDw%3d%3d

 

22.9 million in one Tax credit, that make it in the  worst case scenario a 140 million net budget, maybe it did reach a low enough budget to be a small success (really depend of Cruise contract on this one, if is bonus kicked in late enough they made a nice little profit of 20m or so like Elysium, maybe not otherwise).

 

Jack Reacher 1-2 are kind of franchise movie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

 

It is not Harry Potter or Life of Pi, but it is still one of the most popular modern book series.

 

 

Edited by Barnack
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Edited by HesAPooka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda optimistic now. Cruise is weak in Latin Countries. I feel this movies gonna do well in these places apart from Cruise Fort Asia. 

Coming to Domestic 100m is pretty much possible. 150 looks doable which again depends on WoM. Whatever the movie grosses above 150 mark is a bonus.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.